Ernst Krenek is within the scope of the Composers WikiProject, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!

Ernst Krenek is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

I've undone a reversion by kleinzach, who informs me there is an established practice of ordering works by date of premiere instead of composition and opus number. If this is so, he may reorder them without removing the composition dates. Sparafucil (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether this practice is established (1) for this article in particular, (2) for Krenek's work in general (i.e., on the Krenek website, etc.), or (3) for opera in general? New Grove, for example, lists Krenek's operas by date of composition, and adds dates of premières where available. Thus, Kehraus um St Stephan, op.66 (composed 1930) is listed before Karl V (composed 1932–33), though the latter was first staged in 1938, long before the former, which only received its first performance in 1990.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to (1): You would need to go through the long history of this article, however most of the list was probably taken from the German WP article, which is by premiere (though numbered works are obviously by number). On the German page Kehraus um St Stephan comes before Karl V as a published, and therefore finished (rather than composed) work.

In answer to (3): Establishing the date of composition is (in general) more difficult than the date of a first performance. For that reason the Opera Project uses premiere dates for navigation boxes, categories and lists. (Of course this is not done rigidly in the case of (juvenile etc.) works unperformed in the composer's time.) Grove - and indeed opera articles in WP - will obviously try to give both as far as the records allow. (In their lists, Grove take a case by case approach, for example Wagner is listed by WWV (Wagner Werk-Verzeichnis catalogue number while the operas of an 18th century composer like Salieri are simply listed by premiere. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am an agnostic with respect to (3); we were only recently discussing the merits of chronological versus alphabetic ordering (and why not the latter for a special case like Donizetti?). Opera, more than other forms, tends to be written to order for a specific performance, but if dates of completion are known it is less informative to order by belated premieres, as indeed you argue for juvenilia. I dont see how not to deal with this except on a case by case basis: for some early works we know neither the composition nor the premiere dates and have only publication to go by, and things get messy when there are ongoing revisions. In Krenek's case the scores are inscribed with a date of completion as well as an opus number. I note however that Stewart lists by publication, giving 1951 for Dark Waters, which premiered the year before. Sparafucil (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Karl V, op. 73 (commissioned 1929, completed 1933, premiered Prague 1938; revised 1954) seem a bit fussy to me, and for the shortened version to be unambiguous the theatre would have to be specified (remember that Krenek usually inscribes the city as well as date of completion on the last page). Your reverted version of the Template:Krenek operas is far from unambiguous and imo downright misleading. Sparafucil (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We are here to serve the readers. You may consider something fussy but that is not the point - we have responsibility to make things easier for them. If you have comments about the Template:Krenek operas please put them the relevant page or raise the matter on the Opera Project. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the following bit is problematic. Since it has been restored after my removal, I am raising it here:

On March 6, one day after the Nazis gained control of the Reichstag, Krenek's incidental music to
Goethe's Triumph der Empsindsamkeit had to be withdrawn

What is "gained control of the Reichstag" supposed to mean?

Jerome says they became the "controlling force of government" but that isn't actually true.

What actually happened on March 5 is that there were elections to the Reichstag. The NSDAP won 44% of the seats - hence they did not win a majority. Hitler had been already appointed Chancellor on January 30 and the Fire Decree had suspended civic rights on February 28. Also, the Reichstag elected on March 5 first met on March 21 so actually the 44% went effective only then.

The other question is how this is relevant to Ernst Krenek? Did the Nazi government or someone else wait until after the elections before withdrawing the musich? Who actually was responsible for that? What is the actual link to the election?

If you cannot answer these, you shouldn't say it is "very relevant"! Right now it is just hot air. Str1977(talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not suggesting the timing was a coincidence? I've replaced "gained control" with "gains in the election", although I suspect that the NSDASP had coalition partners to form a majority. Replacing "from 1945" with "later" seems unnecessarily vague. Sparafucil (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I underestimated Str1977. I took his characterizaton of "not relevant" to suggest he either did not know what the Reichstag was, or that he did not see a link between the rise of Naziism and the cancellation of Krenek's performances. I see now that his grasp of events in 1933 is far more detailed than my own. Sparafucil's edit goes some way toward correcting the situation, but there is still a big gap in events, as Str1977 says. The cancellation of Krenek's Karl V took place not in Germany but in Austria, which did not come under Nazi control until the Anschluss in 1938. There were to be sure various Nazi-allied factions active in Austria long before this time, and one of these, according to the liner notes by Matthias Schmidt in the D&G recording of Karl V, the österreichisches Heimwehr was the body actually responsible. It is plausible that their decision to move when they did was emboldened by the Nazi political gain in Germany the previous day, but Schmidt does not mention this, coincidence or no. So the problem of a verifiable source remains, but it should not be an insuperable problem in the long run, since there are a number of good sources out there that I have not yet consulted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the 'Musical style' section now has 6 fact tags added by User:Jerome Kohl including one on the (apparently straightforward and well-documented) sentence "His opera Jonny spielt auf (Johnny Strikes Up, 1926), which is influenced by jazz, was a great success in his lifetime, playing all over Europe.". I wonder if Jerome Kohl can explain his concerns? I can understand challenging some of these facts - but six tags? --Kleinzach 08:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of whether the number of tags is excessive, as the culprit who likely spurred the tagging by noting the Schubert completion yesterday, I've added rudiments of references for the completion and its champions (and added a champion over whom I stumbled in the process). I also took the opportunity to fix a slip of the keyboard that I made yesterday, as I know Lev's recording only on 78s and don't know whether it made it to LP. More detailed information about the recordings, in particular the catalogue designation of Lev's set on the long-defunct limited issue Concert Hall label (which will be something not terribly useful like "Series B Release 3" or some such), and better formatting will have to wait until I have a bit more time and my copies of the records in front of me.Drhoehl (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to explain my concerns. To take the case of Jonny, I think the interested reader ought to be able to follow up this "apparently straightforward and well-documented" sentence, not only to verify its accuracy but, more specifically, to determine whether "all over Europe" means mainly the German-speaking areas, or if, for example, performances were given in Portugal, Italy, and Scotland, and whether this was a short-lived success, or an enduring one. Scrolling down to the "Sources" section, I find but a single entry, the New Grove Dictionary of Opera article by Charlotte Purkis, with a link to the Wikipedia article on this book, stating it is available online. Clicking on that link produces a message: "This site will be back online shortly". An unfortunate mishap, perhaps, and the print copy is over in the library, after all. But next, I turn to the Bibliography section (containing, one supposes, items not actually used as references in this article). The first item is the New Grove article by Garrett Bowles. Consulting that article, I am dismayed to find that the sentence is not corroborated there. All that Bowles says about Jonny is "The completion of Jonny spielt auf (1925) marked a return to tonality and the beginning of what Krenek called his neo-Romantic period, influenced in part by his study of Schubert. The opera’s première in early 1927 soon had Krenek riding a wave of success." This does not confirm (1) that it is influenced by jazz, (2) that it was a success (only that soon afterward Krenek found himself successful—though I will concede that the implication is that Jonny was responsible for initiating this "wave of success"), nor (3) that it was "playing all over Europe" in his lifetime. This leaves two books, by Stewart and by Taylor-Jay. I suppose in the fullness of time I will be able to answer my questions, but it would be so much easier if there is a note pointing me to the right page in the right book or article where the information can be consulted. The much less straightforward but charming reference to the brand of cigarettes might well be covered by the identical source, in which case only one citation would be required.

This leaves four calls for citations: the Schubert completions are not likely covered by Purkis, and are not mentioned by Bowles—so where did this information come from? There is no discography listing the LPs by Ray Lev and Friedrich Wührer, and the linked Wikipedia articles tell me who these people were, but do not mention Krenek, so how do I find these recordings? (Again, the information for both the completions and the recordings may well come from a single source, but I don't know that, so two flags needed to be inserted where perhaps a single citation will serve.)

The claim about twelve-tone technique being used in "most of his later pieces" is perhaps true, though of the sampling of works familiar to me (only three or four dozen out of hundreds—Krenek was a prolific composer), this sounds like an exaggeration. I would like to see a reliable source where at least rough statistics are given. I know the Lamentations rather well myself, and am perfectly aware of the truth of the claim, but others may want to know how on earth this might be done. The sole source for this article, Purkis, is not likely to explain this, so where are they to turn? If you believe this level of citation is excessive, I would suggest you consult the Wikipedia articles on, for example, Igor Stravinsky, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, or Frans Geysen, which are annotated to a much higher standard than is the case with this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both the Ray Lev and Friedrich Wührer articles make rather a big deal about their performances' being the sole known representations of the Krenek completion on records. I know that, because I wrote 'em! If you scroll down in the Wührer article, you'll find that it even includes an extensive discography that I assembled from my own collection, indeed just updated with my discovery, in pursuing documentation for this article, that unofficial copies of all Wührer's Vox Schubert sta. recordings, including the D. 840, have surfaced on private issue CDs. Drhoehl (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to see your annotations. You were right, by the way, that it was your addition of the Schubert completions that drew my attention to the need for citations in this paragraph. You made your welcome addition of the Schubert citations while I was composing my reply to Kleinzach. Thank you for that. Now let's see about the rest.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl: If you had looked at the Jonny spielt auf you would have seen that (1) it was about a jazz player, and that (2) it was "a tremendous success in Germany, providing Krenek with the financial security to be able to devote all his time to composing". I'm not aware of any New Grove article by Bowles. The ones I've seen are by Purkis. I've now added some information from her article on the opera to the WP one. This explains that the work was performed 421 times in Germany alone during its first season - staged in 42 opera houses - and translated into 14 languages.

I'll remove the tag myself. My own policy is to only use fact tags where I think there is a fair chance that the information is wrong. Tagging information that is probably correct is a kind of 'benevolent' trolling - albeit aimed at the improvement of articles. P.S. I would be interested to know how many operas, generally regarded as 'successful' throughout Europe, have been actually staged in Scotland. Do you have any figures? Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for some reciprocal research? Regards. --Kleinzach 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your personal policy. I shall try to remember this in future. In the meantime, I will continue to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing Wikipedia articles. As to the New Grove, the article on Krenek in that publication is by Bowles. Purkis wrote the article in Grove Opera. Your reference to the Wikipedia article Jonny spielt auf is not relevant here, because another Wikipedia article cannot be invoked as a reliable source. If the data there is adequately referenced, what is wrong with transferring those references here? You now say "the work was performed 421 times in Germany alone during its first season", but this still does not translate into "across Europe". Sources, please, instead of rhetoric. I have reverted your edit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been given the source - Charlotte Purkis. This is what I wrote above:

"The work was performed 421 times in Germany alone during its first season - staged in 42 opera houses - and translated into 14 languages."

Whoever wrote 'playing all over Europe' - it wasn't me - was obviously justified. The phrase doesn't mean every opera house, every country, every language as you appear to be suggesting.

It may be true in the world of opera that the New Grove Dictionary of Opera is referred to simply as the New Grove (though the Wikipedia article you point to does not say this), but in the larger world of music New Grove means the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Since there seems to be some ambiguity in what I have said previously, let me just try to clarify: I am not trying to argue about what may or may not constitute "all across Europe". I was simply giving as an example a level of detail (probably inappropriate to a Wikipedia article) that a reader might be interested in following up in a cited source which, at the same time, verifies this claim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A fact tag functions as a warning to the reader that the sentence (or part of it) is incorrect. It's a disservice to the reader to mark every passages which might be better referenced. If you doubt some facts, you should check them yourself using (1) the net, and if possible (2) standard reference books. This was easy enough to do in this case. (I've now added two more references and made sure the other ones display properly.) --Kleinzach 23:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A fact tag can function in this way (or better said: a warning that something may be incorrect there), but its purpose is to mark a place where a citation is needed (not might be needed), pure and simple. I always try to find needed references myself first—I do not always succeed, and sometimes do not have the time to undertake a long search at the moment I see the need for a citation (and trust me, I do not require instruction in how to search for references). Thank you for finding the two references that were in books I could not get at, due to our library being closed in the late-summer interim. In the meantime, I am trying to run down some other references that do not require the library.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, in adding more detailed sourcing about the Ray Lev recording, I discovered that the album contains a nice little essay by Krenek himself about the sonata and his completion. I'll try to incorporate some extracts or a summary into the Wikipedia article about the sonata, which strikes me as the appropriate place for them/it. Should this article incorporate some of that material as well? Drhoehl (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Krenek not only completed the "Reliquie" but also had an invitation to complete Mahler's 10th, I decided that his discussion of such things in the Ray Lev album notes merited inclusion; as other mentions of the completions were split between "life" and "style," however, I further decided to consolidate all into a new section. I also moved some material not really pertinent to "style" from that section into the "life" section and broke the "style" section down into bullet format to ease the reader's tracing out this fecund stylist's changes of direction. In doing so, I came up with a couple of questions. First, as the article stood, it indicated that Krenek started as a late romatic, later adopted atonality, did the Paris thing, then the neo-Romantic thing, then 12-tone. I know that "atonality" is not truly a synonym for "12-tone," but popular usage loosely treats it as one, and I'm guessing that it was originally inserted out of order as a reference to the later 12-tone period; hence, I've moved the reference to the bullet on 12-tone. If that's in error (i.e., if the order really *was* late romantic-atonal-Paris-Schubertish-12 tone), then somebody please correct me and, more importantly, the bullets. Second, the bullet on neo-Romanticism indicates that Krenek began his flirtation with that style in the early '30s and points to a "prime example" that, according to the works list, was a product of 1929. Should the bullet substitute "late '20s" for "early '30s"? Drhoehl (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe your concern about "atonality" vs "12-tone" is justified, though it depends a bit on where we are drawing the lines, chronologically. Even if "popular usage" tends to confuse these two terms, experienced writers usually make a sharp distinction, and encyclopedia articles ought to help readers understand these things, not amplify their confusion. I'm not familiar with Krenek's earliest compositions (prior to op. 6), which may or may not be "late romantic", but certainly during the time he was studying with Schreker he began writing atonal (but not twelve-tone) music. Krenek's First String Quartet is a prime example of this style, with clear influence of Bartók, amongst others. This does not entirely exclude elements of the romantic musical language, of course. The "Schubert thing" came afterward, in the 1920s (rather than the 1930s, as stated, though there maqy be some overlap into the following period), and was followed by his adoption of twelve-tone technique in the early 1930s. I'll have to dig into this a little deeper, but the bulleted list will certainly need revising, preferably with some dates indicating the rough limits of each "style period".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I couldn't agree more about precise usage in the service of the reader; that's why I preserved "atonal" as a distinct term in the "12-tone" bullet, even though I had (apparently unfounded) suspicions that someone originally had confused the two. In fact, when I broke the style section into bullets I had a hunch that some of the dates were going to prove shaky and that the whole thing might turn out to need an overhaul, something obscured by its original format. I will look forward to your prospective corrections and what they'll teach me, since my familiarity with this composer (as you'll doubtless have guessed by now) centers almost exclusively around his Schubert sonata completion.Drhoehl (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We now have sources - which were used in writing this article - put in the bibliography! This is different from the way it's done on other music articles. I realize that there is some confusion about this on WP, however it is generally understood that 'bibliography' means 'further reading' (i.e. works that important but which were not used directly in writing the article). Also it's normal now to use 'References' rather than 'notes' when citing published works rather than providing additional information. So can we please revert to the way it was before or suggest some other arrangement which is not so misleading for readers? --Kleinzach 10:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now attempted to make it clearer. Please make any corrections as necessary while keeping the important distinctions between general sources, specific references (e.g. the cigarette ref.), and further reading. --Kleinzach 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am more than a little perplexed by this whole issue on Wikipedia which, as you say, is confused. I have been trying for months to find some proper guidelines on WP, without much success so far. Though Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Use_of_terms does imply that 'bibliography' to be understood as containing no cited sources, it also implies that it is distinct somehow from 'further reading' (perhaps in that the former contains items used in writing the article, and the latter does not). In the print world, however, "A list of books and other references used by an author in preparing a scholarly work may be titled Bibliography or Select Bibliography or, if it includes only works referred to in the text, Works Cited, Literature Cited, or References; other appropriate titles are not ruled out" (Chicago Manual of Style, 15.74), and I find "Bibliography" used on Wikipedia this way, as well (that is, including both cited and uncited items). For example in the articles Flute, Set theory (music), and Karlheinz Stockhausen, and the term is used exclusively for cited items in List of musical works in unusual time signatures. I have not been able to find any examples where a Bibliography includes no cited items at all, but, then, this word isn't used anywhere near as frequently on Wikipedia as Sources or References.

In your most recent edit, you have requested that works be moved "from Bibliography to Sources or References as appropriate", and here I am really confused. For example, the article Tonality has two sections: "References" and "Sources", with the note: "The references are uncited, the sources are cited, see WP:CITE" Unfortunately, WP:CITE does not define what a "Sources" section is supposed to be, but it does say that cited references when using the footnote system go into a section "towards the end of the article (usually headed "References")", so that article has got at least this idea wrong. At least the present article does seem to follow WP:CITE in using the term "References" for the footnotes. By no means do all Wikipedia articles agree, however. Musical improvisation, La Monte Young, and Symphony of Psalms, for example, have footnotes in shortened citation format, found in a section titled "Notes" or "Footnotes", and a mixed cited/uncited list titled "References". Leo Ornstein has short-format footnotes and a list of "Sources" listing only items found in the footnotes. Igor Stravinsky uses a mixture of shortened and full footnote citations, with a list of "References" listing a mix of the short-format citations and some uncited items, plus a "Further reading" section with entirely uncited material. Bluebeard’s castle is perhaps the worst example of all, mixing as it does intext citations with footnotes, and having a section titled "References", with subsections "Notes" (containing one short-format citation and an external link), and "Bibliography” containing the in-text and short-format citations and two other uncited items.

There is the further complication that, somewhere in the innards of WP (though I cannot at the moment find it), there is a discussion of sources used but not specifically cited in the article text (a good example of this is the birth/death dates and places found in the first line of most biographical articles, which are rarely given inline citations—see the recent discussion on Talk:Gillian Whitehead, for instance). I find a couple of examples where this applies to an entire article: Wozzeck has no inline citations, and a section titled "Sources", listing three items which surely were consulted when writing the article. On the other hand, Silvestre Revueltas also has no inline citations, but the long list of "Sources" cannot possibly all have been consulted in the writing of this very short article. Up until just last week, Charlotte Purkis's article was such an item here, but is now cited in a footnote. This kind of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia, and raises very serious questions about the advisability of keeping separate lists of cited, uncited but used, and "further reading" items, since a future edit may add or delete a footnote, and the editor may not think to move things around in the Bibliography/References/Sources/Further reading sections.

One last thing: I don't think it is a good idea to sandwich the footnotes sections (whatever it is titled) between two of these reference-list categories. In books and printed articles, the usual placement is after the appendix (if any) and before the glossary and bibliography (or reference list).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've acted on your last suggestion. I'm sorry to have caused you to write such a long response to my message at the top of this topic. It is indeed a 'no win' situation. It's not something we can solve here. (Even on the Opera Project, where we usually try to resolve WP anomalies, we have not produced any guidelines, though recently most people have kept 'Bibliography' for 'Further (uncited) reading' and the 'References/notes' and 'Sources' have been combined under 'References' with the citations preceding the general sources.)

I don't think this is going to be resolved because of the incompatible approaches of the (print-influenced) 'copyeditors' and the (post-print) 'techies'. I realized that when I tried to make all our references 'Harvard style' and found the various citation templates. Anyway if you want to devote a large part of your Wiki-life to reforming this - the best of luck. it would be a good cause! --Kleinzach 03:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct about the unliklihood of a resolution. I observe that WP:CITE itself is in an ongoing process of fairly intensive revision, so that guidelines there may well be changing even as we edit. However, I don't read the present guideline to be making 'Bibliography' equivalent to 'Further reading', but only to suggest that, like 'External links', sections with these titles should not include sources actually cited in the text. I cannot find anywhere anything more specific about what constitutes a 'Bibliography' in the Wikipedia sense (as opposed to the way the word is used in common English), but it might well be used to list sources upon which the article is founded, though they are not actually cited anywhere to support specific claims.

In our present case, however, Purkis's article on Krenek in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, not cited in a footnote, is in the "Sources" category. Am I to understand this to mean that, in this case, 'Sources' contains things used for the article but not actually cited? Krenek 1943 is cited in the notes, but is listed in the Bibliography, whereas the other items in the Bibliography are not cited. How can we tell which of these items have been drawn on for the article (but did not require specific citations), and which have not? Stewart 1991 certainly ought to be one of these, and perhaps Bowles 1989, as well. Furthermore, there is a second Purkis article (the one on Karl V) as well as three other print sources in footnotes but not in either the Bibliography or the Sources. These should probably be reduced to short citations with the full bibliographical information in either Sources or Bibliography, but which one? As things stand, it would appear they must go in the Bibliography, since 'Sources' has the one uncited item in it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:EntarteteKunst.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

Oddly enough, the same image has drawn no copyright challenge at the Degenerate Art exhibit article, where it also appears; perhaps the appropriate documentation is available there (I have no experience whatever in documenting photographs). That said, I don't think the picture particularly enhances Krenek's article, even with the caption that I tacked on a few days ago tying it to the subject at hand, and I'd welcome its replacement with a photo of the composer or even of a scene from one of his operas. Just not one of those placeholder image things, please! Drhoehl (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

for example there is no mention of the famous LAMENTATIONS, and the beginning hexachordal rotations[1]. What about discussion of the other operas such as THE BELL TOWER (I see there is a short wiki entry on the Melville opera), the eight string quartets, five symphonies, seven piano sonatas one of which was championed by Glenn Gould. I would add if I had all of the data... Hstokar (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Geni.com strongly suggests that his middle name was Heinrich; I don't know how reliable we believe that site is, of course, but it may be worth double-checking elsewhere. Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)